Comment by rich_sasha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rich_sasha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The gold standard for any wilderness area is a printed map. It may also be scanned and available through electronic means, but that’s an extra.

They are insanely accurate in most developed countries, to the point of listing individual trees and boulders at times, and that’s something OSM et all isn’t even trying to match.

The fact that this is up for debate in this thread kind of reinforces my point: this used to be something every hiker would know. Route finding is based on maps, printed (curated) guidebooks and talking to experienced hikers or guides.

We moved to a paradigm where the definition of knowledge is what is accessible by Google (either google itself or a searchable link). I can’t then really blame people for following down this route - but ultimately this is heading in a direction of lost knowledge.

We think, oh what a shame we are losing the traditional Maori navigation methods, but I guess the same is happening (at a much smaller scale!!!) to modern societies too.

> The gold standard for any wilderness area is a printed map.

When one is available and up to date, yes. That hinges on ... so many things. Your OP is strange because (1) it assumes the absolute superiority of paper maps, without any qualification for what kind of map you're talking about, and (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on the ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and "teenagers".

Incidentally, the place I was visiting in California recently had no visitor's center or easily accessible ranger's station, so there was no obvious way to acquire a paper map. It was not a small, clearly defined area like a mountain where "listing individual trees and boulders" even makes sense.

It seems dangerously presumptive to conclude that very low traffic areas traversed mainly by rangers are going to have accurate maps available at all. Gold standard or no gold standard, when you venture out in certain areas of wilderness, you have to fend for yourself. You can't always count on the accuracy of a map - survival skills and ability to use a compass are at least as important.

> (1) it assumes the absolute superiority of paper maps, without any qualification for what kind of map you're talking about

Well, yes, not any paper map. Also not any phone does maps right? Needs to have a screen. Not every computer has internet. And I suppose an Amiga might not even be able to render a map.

All of UK (literally all) is covered by OS maps, at topographic accuracy. A little flimsy piece of paper you can pick up at a hut is not that. US has USGS maps, or national geographic maps, apparently (haven’t hiked in the US). Most/all countries have an equivalent and that’s the go-to for any semi-serious hiking and above. This data is collected and maps maintained anyway, since military, police, and really lots of government agencies needs very, very accurate central authority on the lay of the land.

> (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on the ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and "teenagers".

Well there is no blame to apportion since there isn’t apparently a fault. But if someone is mislead by the google maps image, I’ll put it in the same category as driving to Gibraltar when you meant Gibraltar St.

> US has USGS maps, or national geographic maps, apparently (haven’t hiked in the US).

These are

(1) Easily available online, and various apps can save offline copies of arbitrary portions of the maps to be used without Internet access.

(2) Frequently not accurate / updated, and don't contain all hiking trails.

If you had looked up the Wikipedia article on the USGS maps, you would have seen the following:

> In 2008 the USGS abandoned traditional methods of surveying, revising, and updating topographic maps based on aerial photography and field checks. Today's U.S. Topo quadrangle (1:24,000) maps are mass-produced, using automated and semiautomated processes, with cartographic content supplied from the National GIS Database. In the two years from June 2009 to May 2011, the USGS produced nearly 40,000 maps, more than 80 maps per work day. Only about two hours of interactive work are spent on each map, mostly on text placement and final inspection; there are essentially no field checks or field inspections to confirm map details.

> While much less expensive to compile and produce, the revised digital U.S. topo maps have been criticized for a lack of accuracy and detail in comparison to older generation maps based on aerial photo surveys and field checks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Geological_Surve...

Good to know. I’ll strike off USA from my list of developed countries that maintain high-quality maps of their own territory.

Checking a proper topo map on an electronic device is just as good (+/- all the usual batter and water considerations), it’s a world of difference to Google Maps, or even OSM - which is often surprisingly good, but doesn’t hold a candle to a proper topo map, and probably isn’t trying to.

Open Cycling Maps combines OSM data with open source topo data and works really well. The gold standard for digital hiker is a gpx track made by experienced mountaineer, on top of OCM.

Between that, satellite imagery and offline capabilities of a modern phone and a hiking app that supports these formats you're all set.

The reason that you should have a topo map and compass, and know how to use them is that your battery cannot be expected to serve you throughout a multi-day hiking/camping trip.

Ordnance survey maps are a different kettle of fish altogether. The UK has a completely different scale of geography though. It takes 403 maps to cover the UK, what would it take for the US at ordnance survey detail?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com